But meanwhile, Paris Hilton has been responsible for multiple car crashes, rampant drug use, the decline of Western civilization, and is, according to recent surveys, the most overexposed celebrity in the world. A mean feat, to be sure, but yet another reason that her noxious influence needs to be stopped today. And frankly, if a DUI is the best that American prosecutors have managed in her 25-year reign of terror, then the Hague won't get around to her until 2050. And by then, it will be too late: her one-woman genocide of intellect will already be complete.

Let's take a look at some facts that I've carefully arranged together to make my point.

Saddam Hussein slaughtered thousands of Kurds, we probably all agree on that. But since we invaded, more Iraqis have died violently in the um, NOT civil war, than he ever gassed or murdered. By the time we invaded, the Iraqi army, economy, and society were all crumble-ready, as we've seen, and certainly not ready to be anything more than a nuisance for its neighbors. Also, you might remember that Saddam was a secular dictator. Until we tried to link Saddam to 9/11, Iraq was one of Al Qaeda's least favorite Arab dictatorships.

Invading Paris Hilton would've almost certainly resulted in fewer casualties, even if you include those who would develop "Paris Hilton Syndrome" or, as they're more widely known, STDs. Additionally, patrolling Paris would require fewer soldiers than it does to patrol Iraq. And Paris Hilton, as the country's most overexposed celebrity, certainly gets far more airtime-- and therefore, more pernicious influence-- than Saddam ever had.

President Cheney made a mistake. If only we'd elected someone more pop culture savvy...like that guy who invented the Internet.

7 Comments:

Anonymous said...

The Lancet Lies Again

October 16, 2006: The British medical journal, The Lancet, has again turned over its pages to political propaganda pretending to be science. The latest report claims that a very flawed survey of the Iraqi population proves that military and terrorist operations have killed over 600,000 Iraqis in the past three years. Several things should be noted.

First, the normal death rate of the Iraqi population would leave about 550,000 dead since early 2003. Second, the terrorist, and counter-terrorist, violence in Iraq is largely restricted to four of the 18 provinces. About a third of the population is involved, mainly because Baghdad is a principal battleground.

But the Lancet study implies that a third of the population has suffered these losses, which means over seven percent of the people living in that area would have died since 2003. That's a lot of bodies. Where are they? Where are the standards required for statistics and data in a study like this?

Now, it may sound jokey to say that we've killed more Arabs than Saddam - but you did not mention the 10-year long Iran-Iraq war where 1.5 million died and millions more were injured. That's the war where Iraq and Iran started using chemical munitions (munitions they were able to manufacture themselves - the formula for mustard gas is over 100 years old.)

Also, it looks like the anonymous above is an autobot responding automatically to criticism. Here's the point, autobot:

By the time the year 2006 ends, it is likely that more Americans will have died from Desert Storm 2.0 than 9/11. As far as Iraqis go, we've still to yet see one great rose petal parade. And I doubt we'll get one.

What IS hilarious is your version of hilarious [HILAR OUS] !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Is you screen-name a mis-spelling of thegayvalley?

While you are weeping over death tolls remember -

3,000 soldiers die each year in the Russian Army due to "training accidents" and suicides.50,000 soldiers died in one day at Gettysburg.30-40,000 people die each year on US highways.200 people died this week in Capetown, South Africa.

I was living in NYC when the towers fell - you, obviously, were not.

What IS sad, is your shallow name-dropping of 9/11 to legitimize your super-glib misguided compassion.